nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Sizewell C Nuclear boss challenged on her definition of failure

Nuclear plant boss Julia Pyke (“‘It’s a tough
gig, developing big infrastructure projects in the UK’”, Work &
Careers, March 17) says “I know [some campaigners] want to believe that
it’s all a terrible failure, but truly, it isn’t.”

As one of those campaigners she is trying unsuccessfully to “win over”, I would point
out that all six “EPR” reactors — the type proposed for Sizewell C on
the Suffolk coast — have been significantly late and over budget.

Taishan 1 in China (five years late, double its budget) was offline for almost two
years early in its operational life. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland and Flamanville
3 in France have suffered teething troubles after being 14 and 12 years
late and costing three and four times their budgets, respectively.

Hinkley Point C’s budget has already doubled and the project is four to six years
late, with another four to six years still to go. Given her role, is it not
important to understand how Pyke defines “failure”?

Alison Downes:  FT 18th March 2025
https://www.ft.com/content/0625dfba-9867-446d-9a42-a952c04a2e1b

March 20, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

German media told to conceal Nazi symbols in Ukraine – Moscow

 https://www.rt.com/russia/614353-germany-nazi-symbols-ukraine/ 19 Mar 25

Berlin has forbidden journalists from showing banned images in their coverage, according to Russian intelligence.

The German government has ordered national media outlets not to show Nazi symbols in Ukraine, according to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). Journalists have been warned that they may face legal repercussions for broadcasting any such imagery, the agency reported on Monday.

The guidelines advise reporters to “politely” ask Ukrainian soldiers displaying the swastika or other Nazi-associated symbols to remove the “agitation elements” and avoid “unwelcome actions,” such as performing the Nazi salute, according to the SVR.

The agency emphasized that the prevalence of Nazi iconography and ideology in contemporary Ukraine is well-documented. The recommendation to exclude evidence from broadcasts suggests an effort to mislead the German public about the situation, the SVR claimed.

While the Russian report did not specify when the document was issued or which branch of the government was responsible, it stated that compliance by news outlets reflects a lack of independence.

Under the German Criminal Code, public display of symbols associated with the Third Reich is generally prohibited, except for educational, scientific, journalistic, or artistic purposes.

According to Moscow, modern Ukrainian nationalism is shaped by historical collaboration with Nazi Germany during World War II. Figures such as Stepan Bandera, who sought to establish a Ukrainian nation-state under German patronage, are celebrated as national heroes.

Western media and officials have minimized the use of Nazi symbols by Ukrainian soldiers, framing it as a historical quirk rather than a sign of neo-Nazi affiliations, and dismissing contrary claims as “Russian propaganda.”

Moscow contends that it has amassed substantial evidence of Ukrainian atrocities driven by notions of national supremacy, justifying its designation of the Kiev government as a neo-Nazi regime.

March 20, 2025 Posted by | Germany, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Niobium – A Radioactive Sword of Damocles Hangs over Brazil’s Northern Amazon.

what most of the recent published articles on Niobium mining and production did not tell is, that it comes together with radioactive contamination.

by Norbert Suchanek March 14, 2025,  http://www.brazzil.com/niobium-a-radioactive-sword-of-damocles-hangs-over-brazils-northern-amazon/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJG251leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHfGUg_gxwqT-GH-2rf2gS6UFbCIEJor7nUjyHk5r3QeWWDN68BkPISQ75Q_aem_IuD1Bi2C47ICmfmj-uK0BQ

Balaio at the upper Rio Negro in the Northwest of the State of Amazonas is one of the most preserved indigenous reservation in Brazil. More then 257,000 hectares of rainforest, rivers and mountains. Located in the municipality of São Gabriel da Cachoeira it is the traditional territory of the Tukano and eight other indigenous peoples, the Baniwa, Baré, Desana, Koripako, Kubeo, Pira-tapuya, Tariana and Tuyuka. And it is the birthplace of 71-year-old Alvaro Doéthiro Sampaio Tukano.

Since his father Ahkïto died in 2020, at the age of 110, Alvaro Doéthiro Sampaio Tukano has been the chief of the Tukanos in Balaio. Alvaro is one of the most respected indigenous leaders and shamans in Brazil. He was one of the founders of the Union of Indigenous Nations (UNI) and together with other known leaders and activists like Mario Juruna, Marcos Terena, Aílton Krenak, Paulinho Paiakan and Davi Kopenawa Yanomami at the forefront of the indigenous movement in the 1980s and 1990s fighting for the demarcation and preservation of their traditional territories.

As chief of the Tukano, Alvaro is committed to preserving their traditions and expanding the supply of traditional medicine and food. The challenge is to preserve the forest and achieve food and health sovereignty by harnessing the indigenous knowledge his people have acquired over millennia.

However a sword of Damocles hangs over Balaio. It’s called Niobium (Nb).

One of the world’s largest deposits of the strategic mineral Niobium is located in the Tukano territory. The Niobium reserves in the São Gabriel da Cachoeira region could be enough to meet the world’s demand for Niobium for 400 years, prospectors say.

Niobium is a heavy metal used essentially in alloys in several industrial applications, such as aeronautics, aerospace, fabrication of pipelines and oil rigs and in nuclear fuel rods of nuclear power plants. It is particularly important for the arms industry. In addition Niobium plays today a vital role in the global energy transition from non-renewable to so called “green” energy solutions. Used in advanced Lithium-ion batteries, it enables the development of materials with fast charging capabilities.

A recent paper on Brazil published at the Munich Security Conference 2025 states: “The second issue is the energy transition and the global fight against climate change. Brazil’s critical mineral reserves make it indispensable for the development of clean technologies. It holds 94 percent of the world’s niobium, 22 percent of its graphite, 16 percent of its nickel, and 17 percent of its rare earth elements – all vital components in green technologies.”

However, already in 2020 scientists from the University of São Paulo (USP) pleaded “Keep the Amazon Niobium in the Ground” because of the possible cumulative effects of forest loss resulting from potential development of unexploited rare earths and Niobium (Nb) reserves in the region.

They wrote in the study: “Whilst developing these mineral deposits goes against the economic rationale of matching supply and demand of commodities in international markets, it is conceivable that political will could build a narrative ‘demonstrating’ that opening up the region for mining is in the national interest, thus paving the way for subsidies and public investments in infrastructure that could have devastating consequences for biodiversity and indigenous peoples.”

To date, any mining in demarcated indigenous territories is prohibited by the Brazilian Constitution. However, there is now a strong political lobby in Brasilia that wants to change this. Furthermore there are growing international interests in Brazil’s strategic minerals.

In November of last year, Brazil and China signed an agreement for sustainable mining — whatever the word “sustainable” may mean in this context. The extraction and development of niobium, lithium, and nickel are among the priorities of the agreement. And, of course, the US government also has a keen interest in that heavy metal. In May 2024, the US ambassador to the country, Elizabeth Bagley, said to the media that the US wants partnership with Brazil for Critical Minerals such as Niobium.

But what most of the recent published articles on Niobium mining and production did not tell is, that it comes together with radioactive contamination.

All Niobium mining and processing is associated with the generation of large amounts of radioactive waste. Niobium ore is classified worldwide as a naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) and it occurs in the Earth’s crust along with radioactive elements such as uranium, radium, thorium, potassium-40, and lead-210. Each ton of niobium produced leaves behind a legacy of around 100 to 400 tons of radioactive and toxic waste, according to current statistics from the Brazilian Atomic Energy Commission (CNEN).

Last February, Federal Minister Gilmar Mendes of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) presented a bill that would undermine the Brazilian Constitution and allow mining even in demarcated indigenous territories. If the bill gains a majority in Brasilia, the indigenous peoples of the upper Rio Negro region may have to decide whether to consent to niobium mining in exchange for compensation or to defend consequently their territories.

The Navajo Nation, with over 500 abandoned uranium mines and unsecured radioactive tailings, could show Alvaro Tukano and his people what it means to live in a radioactive contaminated territory.

Norbert Suchanek is a German correspondent in Rio de Janeiro and an experienced environmental journalist. At the beginning of March of this year, he received the Nuclear-Free Future Award in the Education category in New York City.

Contact: norbert.suchanek@online.de

March 20, 2025 Posted by | Brazil, environment | Leave a comment

Trump offers to take control of Ukraine’s nuclear plants in call with Zelensky

President Donald Trump proposed that the United States take control of Ukrainian nuclear power plants to protect them from Russian attacks during a Tuesday call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky said Kyiv was “ready” to pause attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, a day after Moscow agreed to halt similar strikes on Ukraine.

By: FRANCE 24, Video by: James VASINA, 19 Mar 25

Donald Trump told Volodymyr Zelensky Wednesday that the United States could own and run Ukraine‘s nuclear power plants as part of his latest bid to secure a ceasefire in Russia‘s invasion of its neighbour.

The Ukrainian president said following their call that Kyiv was “ready” to pause attacks on Russia’s energy network and infrastructure, a day after Vladimir Putin agreed to halt similar strikes on Ukraine.

Zelensky also said he had discussed Trump’s power plant takeover plan.

“We talked only about one power plant, which is under Russian occupation,” Zelensky, who was on an official visit to Finland, said during an online briefing, referring to the plant in Zaporizhzhia…………………………………………………………………..

Trump “discussed Ukraine’s electrical supply and nuclear power plants” and said Washington could be “very helpful” in running them,” National Security Advisor Mike Waltz and Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a joint statement.

“American ownership of those plants would be the best protection for that infrastructure,” it said……………………………………  https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250320-trump-ukraine-nuclear-power-plants-zelensky

March 20, 2025 Posted by | politics, USA | Leave a comment

The Phony Ceasefire

European leaders, who’ve staked their reputations on not losing in Ukraine, can apparently see no other way than to scaremonger a Russian threat and meet it by unnecessarily militarizing the continent. They need their publics to support this. 

Knowing well in advance that Russia would reject it, the U.S. and Ukraine announced with fanfare that its ceasefire deal was in “Russia’s court” in what was an exercise of pure public relations, writes Joe Lauria.

by Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 16 Mar 25 more https://consortiumnews.com/2025/03/16/the-phony-ceasefire/

Nothing could have been clearer than Russia’s repeated conditions for a permanent end of the war, rather than a temporary ceasefire: Ukraine’s neutrality, its demilitarization and denazification, the inclusion of four Russian-speaking oblasts into the Russian Federation and treaties establishing a new security architecture in Europe.

Equally clear was Ukraine’s utter rejection of these conditions, demanding instead the return of every inch of its territory, including Crimea, and Ukraine’s membership in NATO.

It is the reason the two sides are still fighting a war. It is a war, however, that Ukraine is badly losing.  Obscuring that fact is an important aim of Ukraine and its European allies to keep their publics onside. 

But it isn’t only their publics that need convincing to continue supporting Ukraine, but the president of the United States too. 

After the Oval Office dustup, in which Donald Trump and J.D. Vance laid it on the line to Zelensky in public, the Europeans held two summits. At both they made loud noises about continuing to support Zelensky, but also made clear they couldn’t do it without the United States.

Much as they loathe him, Zelensky and the European leaders need Donald Trump. So they set Zelensky up to writing a letter sucking up to Trump, a man clearly susceptible to flattery.

Very likely also influenced by his Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, both of whom had previously expressed neocon support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, Trump was apparently turned around, convinced to propose the 30-day ceasefire.

Trump then somehow got the notion that Vladimir Putin, despite his oft repeated conditions for ending the war, would yield to pressure. It could be Trump thinks he is a neutral mediator who needs to bully both sides to force them to do a deal. 


So after the ceasefire was floated, Trump resumed arms and intelligence flows to Ukraine, new sanctions on Russia were threatened and Ukraine fired 350 drones at residential areas of Moscow just as Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff was arriving in Moscow to discuss the ceasefire.

Like Casting a Lone Veto

All this was designed to push Putin to accept it or appear like a man guilty of rejecting peace.  If U.S. arms, intelligence and sanctions had not deterred Putin before, why would it now?

Putin saw this as the public relations exercise that it is and treated it as such. He responded with public relations of his own. 

Instead of firmly saying the expected, “No,” he said, “Yes,” followed by “nuances,” such as who would monitor such a ceasefire along a 2,000-kilometer front?

He said such a ceasefire could not begin as occupying Ukrainian troops were encircled on Russian territory; and, crucially, that a 30-day ceasefire — with no Ukrainian rearmament — could only mark the start of talks for a permanent settlement.  Putin exposed the motive to give Ukrainian troops on the run a chance to regroup.

Just as designed, Zelensky and European leaders blasted Putin for being a man who loves war, and hates peace.

At the U.N. Security Council, which I covered as a correspondent for a quarter of a century, I often saw countries introduce resolutions for a vote even though they were certain one of the five permanent members would veto it.

Diplomats explained that this was done on purpose to force the arm of that nation’s ambassador to be the lone one raised in opposition to the measure for all the world to see, causing it maximum public embarrassment. 

That is precisely the exercise we have seen with this phony ceasefire proposal. The Europeans and the Ukrainians are trying to milk it for all it’s worth.  Zelensky did a selfie video to call Putin a “manipulator” of world leaders.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “The Kremlin’s complete disregard for President Trump’s cease-fire proposal only serves to demonstrate that Putin is not serious about peace.” 

Starmer deployed the scare tactic that Putin is bent on European conquest, saying: “Russia’s appetite for conflict and chaos undermines our security back here in the United Kingdom.” He even tried to blame his political difficulties at home on Russia for “driving up energy costs.”

Meanwhile Starmer says a European peacekeeping force is moving to “operational phase” ahead of a Thursday meeting of European leaders.  Only with a ceasefire and Russia’s consent could such a force be deemed “peacekeepers” however. 

European leaders, who’ve staked their reputations on not losing in Ukraine, can apparently see no other way than to scaremonger a Russian threat and meet it by unnecessarily militarizing the continent. They need their publics to support this. 

In the end, the “ceasefire” gambit may indeed create more public sympathy for Ukraine and more irrational fear of Russia. But the big question is whether it will harden Trump against Russia by continuing arms shipments and intelligence and perhaps levelling new sanctions against Moscow. 

All that would do, however, is prolong the death and destruction. Without NATO’s direct participation in the war against Russia, which would risk nuclear annihilation, the outcome of the war is certain.  Because of that, Trump could resume pressure on Zelensky to essentially give up instead.

The ball is now in Trump’s court.  On Sunday he told reporters he would be discussing land and control of powet plants in telephone call with Putin scheduled for Tuesday. “We want to see if we can bring that war to an end,” he said. “Maybe we can. Maybe we can’t, but I think we have a very good chance.” 

The course of this three-year conflict since Russia’s intervention makes clear that the longer Ukraine tries to fight, the worse deal it will get, no matter how many public relations points it might win along the way.  

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.

March 19, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Britain wants Ukraine’s minerals too

It’s not just Trump. The UK views critical minerals as a government priority and wants to open up Ukraine’s vast resources to British corporations.

MARK CURTIS, 11 March 2025,
more https://www.declassifieduk.org/britain-wants-ukraines-minerals-too/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Button&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=Button

When UK officials signed a 100 year partnership with Ukraine in mid-January, they claimed to be Ukraine’s “preferred partner” in developing the country’s “critical minerals strategy”.

Yet within a month, Donald Trump had presented a proposal to Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky to access the country’s vast mineral resources as “compensation” for US support to Ukraine in the war against Russia.

Whitehall was none too pleased about Washington muscling in. 

When foreign secretary David Lammy met Zelensky in Kyiv last month he reportedly raised the issue of minerals, “a sign that Starmer’s government is still keen to get access to Ukraine’s riches”, the iPaper reported. 

Lammy earlier said, in a speech last year: “Look around the world. Countries are scrambling to secure critical minerals, just as great powers once raced to control oil”.

The UK foreign secretary was correct, but Britain itself is one of those powers, and Ukraine is one of the major countries UK officials – as well as the Trump administration – have their eyes on. 

It’s no surprise why. Ukraine has around 20,000 mineral deposits covering 116 types of minerals such as beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium, zirconium, rare earth metals, and nickel. 

The country, whose economy has been devastated by Russia’s brutal war, also possesses one of the world’s largest reserves of graphite, the largest titanium reserves in Europe, and a third of the continent’s lithium deposits. 

These resources are key for industries such as military production, high tech, aerospace, and green energy. 

In recent years, the Ukrainian government has sought to attract foreign investment to develop its critical mineral resources and signed strategic partnerships and held investment fora to showcase its mining opportunities. 

The country has also begun auctioning exploration permits for minerals such as lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel, offering lucrative investment opportunities. 

Media narratives largely parrot the UK government’s interests in Ukraine being about standing up to aggression. But Whitehall has in the past few years stepped up its interest in accessing the world’s critical minerals, not least in Ukraine. www.liberalsagainstnuclear.au

March 19, 2025 Posted by | politics international, UK, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Red light for the greenway

A wildlife corridor plans to connect two Superfund sites at the former Rocky Flats plutonium plant and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal that once produced chemical weapons. Locals fear residual contamination could spread.

 John Abbotts, March 14, 2025,  https://thebulletin.org/2025/03/red-light-for-the-greenway-locals-oppose-wildlife-corridor-at-plutonium-contaminated-rocky-flats-site/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Plutonium-contaminated%20wildlife%20corridor%3F%20Colorado%20locals%20say%20no&utm_campaign=20250317%20Monday%20Newsletter

n September, the city council of Westminster, Colorado voted not to fund a pedestrian bridge and underpass at the Rocky Flats site due to concerns about residual soil contamination from plutonium and other hazardous materials. In the process, the city council withdrew about $200,000 in financial support for the development of the project, known as the Rocky Mountain Greenway.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed the greenway to connect wildlife refuges at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal through hiking trails via the Two Ponds refuge to Rocky Flats, with plans to eventually connect to the Rocky Mountain National Park. But the plan is controversial: Both Rocky Flats and the Arsenal are still on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List, identified since 1987 as “Superfund” cleanup sites that contain residual contamination.

The US Army established the Arsenal to produce chemical weapons to support World War II efforts, and in the 1990s, the federal government leased part of the Arsenal to Shell Chemical Co. to manufacture fertilizer and pesticides. In 1952, the Atomic Energy Commission began operations at Rocky Flats as a federal atomic weapons facility, producing plutonium triggers for hydrogen bombs. (A hydrogen bomb or H-bomb uses fission in the primary—uranium or plutonium—to trigger the secondary into a fusion reaction that combines two atomic nuclei to form a single heavier nucleus, releasing a much larger amount of energy.) Operations started largely in secret at Rocky Flats, located in a sparsely populated area 16 miles upwind and upslope of the city of Denver. But in the late 1970s, the public became more informed about plant operations, and the movement opposing atomic weapons began to focus on the facility, organizing protests and civil disobedience actions.

By the late 1980s, when the federal cleanup program at both sites had been initiated, work had already begun on the new Denver International Airport on Rocky Mountain Arsenal lands, and the Denver suburbs had steadily spread west toward Rocky Flats. Accordingly, there was consensus at each site that expedited cleanup would most effectively protect the metropolitan area, and cleanup standards were looser than “unrestricted use” to develop national wildlife refuges at each site. The consequences were residual contamination, especially at Rocky Flats, where there was no limit on how much plutonium remained below six feet of soil in an industrial area fenced off from the public and with the surrounding land converted to a wildlife refuge. This “cleanup on the cheap” at Rocky Flats, plus a record of cover-ups of accidents at the site, created continuing distrust and controversy over post-remediation uses near Rocky Flats. Cities and citizens opposed different proposals for re-use, even over the issue of public access to the refuge. Now there are concerns that the proposed greenway—a trail between the two tracts—may facilitate cross-contamination, taking radioactive material from the Rocky Flats site to the chemically hazardous Arsenal property, and vice versa.

Contamination—then a raid

Each of the two Rocky Mountain sites has a controversial history. At Rocky Mountain Arsenal, chemical contaminants have been identified as organochlorine pesticides, akin to DDT and its chemical cousins, of which Rachel Carson warned in her classic 1962 book Silent Spring. Other contaminants at the site include heavy metals, organophosphate, and carbamate pesticides—with each of these pesticide classes known to be neurotoxic—along with a potpourri of other chemical contaminants in groundwater.

As for Rocky Flats, a 1972 paper from radiochemist Edward Martell and one of his colleagues at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado reported that just east of the site boundary levels of radioactive plutonium 239 and americium 241 ranged “up to hundreds of times that from nuclear tests.” In 1969, a highly visible fire at the site’s plutonium processing facility sparked off-site monitoring; at the time, the fire was assumed to be the source of the detected contamination. Later, the Atomic Energy Commission was forced to admit that a 1957 fire in a separate plutonium recovery building or leaks from drums containing plutonium-contaminated waste were more likely the source of off-site soil contamination.

When the Rocky Flats facility was still operating, it accepted contaminated metal from another Atomic Energy Commission facility. In the process of treating and burying the waste, Rocky Flats released tritium into a nearby stream, contaminating the drinking water source for the city and county of Broomfield, five miles west of the facility. The contamination occurred for more than a decade leading up to 1970; the tritium remained undetected until 1973.

In 1986, amendments to Superfund legislation expanded the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to oversee the cleanup of contaminated federal facilities. The following year, the agency designated Rocky Mountain Arsenal as a Superfund site.

Then, in June 1989, the FBI and EPA raided the Rocky Flats plant in response to allegations of multiple environmental crimes at the site. After an investigation, plutonium production ended, the EPA designated Rocky Flats a Superfund site in the same year. In 1992, Rockwell International, the contractor in charge of managing the site, pleaded guilty to environmental crimes and paid a fine of $18.5 million.

Contested cleanup plans

The regulatory agencies responsible for environmental cleanup—the EPA’s Region 8 office, based in Denver, and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment—have certified cleanup as partially complete at each site. The “responsible parties” are now the US Army for the Arsenal and the US Department of Energy for Rocky Flats.

At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, cleanup extended to 10 feet below the surface, considered a sufficient depth to prevent burrowing animals from spreading the widespread chemical contamination there. In 2010, the regulatory agencies determined parts of the Arsenal sufficiently remediated to serve as a National Wildlife Refuge and transferred the management of the designated property to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. That service transferred a small herd of bison from a national range in Montana, and bison continue to inhabit the refuge.

The Army retains responsibility for a central area, along with smaller contaminated locations covered for monitoring and groundwater remediation. In 2019, the Colorado Department of Public Health sued Shell and the Army in the US District Court for hazardous chemicals from the Arsenal leaking into groundwater. The suit alleged that unsafe levels of organochlorine pesticides, heavy metals, chlorinated and aromatic solvents, and chemical agent degradation products and manufacturing byproducts had been found in groundwater. Litigation on that case is still ongoing.

At Rocky Flats, the controversy over the site’s past activities extended into its cleanup, with some opponents characterizing the proposed plans as “bait-and-switch.” Early in the cleanup process, the Energy Department funded an advisory committee that, in turn, established a “future site uses” working group. One of the working group’s recommendations was for residual plutonium contamination to be cleaned down to background level, to protect future area residents, no matter how long it would take. However, state officials assessed that a speedy cleanup that converted some areas into a National Wildlife Refuge was the desirable approach to protect outer metropolitan areas expanding toward the site boundaries.

The Energy Department and the site’s federal and state regulators agreed to limit the total costs of remediation and established a residual plutonium contamination limit in the top three feet of soil and a higher limit between three and six feet. (There was no contamination limit below six feet.) These limits were sufficient to qualify outer areas of Rocky Flats as a National Wildlife Refuge, and those areas were released to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006. Since then, the controversy has remained because the residual contamination is too high for unlimited uses of Rocky Flats.

Opposing the greenway

The city of Westminster is now the third municipal government to express concern over residual contamination at Rocky Flats. In 2016, the town of Superior, north of the site, voted to withdraw from the Rocky Mountain Greenway, a Federal Lands Access Program grant and project. The city and county of Broomfield followed suit in October 2020, unanimously approving a resolution for the withdrawal from the greenway. The Broomfield city council hired an environmental consultant to conduct soil sampling along the proposed Greenway, and the resolution expressed concern over the high levels of plutonium detected in the soil. After the resolution, the city stated that it would not contribute the $105,000 that was supposed to go to the Greenway project and would not allow Greenway-related construction work on Broomfield property.

The city of Broomfield also opposed another post-cleanup proposal—the Jefferson Parkway Highway Authority—described on its web page as a “privately-funded, publicly-owned regional toll road.” The proposed road would pass just outside the wildlife refuge, which was the eastern boundary of the former plutonium facility. The parkway authority had no plans to sample soil nearby until both Broomfield and a citizens advisory board recommended doing so before construction began. The authority then started sampling and, in September 2019, reported a sample containing 264 picocuries of plutonium per gram. (A picocurie is one trillionth of a curie, a measure of radioactivity.) This was much higher than the maximum limit of 50 picocuries per gram for surface contamination within the former industrial zone. Although this was the only sample above the limit, given the authority’s earlier resistance to sampling, the community lost faith in the project’s safety.

The Broomfield city council voted unanimously in February 2020 to withdraw from the Jefferson Parkway Association, removing a $70,000 annual payment in the process. In 2022, the county of Jefferson and city of Arvada sued Broomfield in response, claiming the parkway could not continue without that county’s continued participation. But a Colorado District Court judge dismissed that suit in December 2023, urging the parties to negotiate over Broomfield’s participation. The city and county of Broomfield expressed satisfaction with that decision, and the parkway’s future was described as “uncertain.”

In an escalatory move, in January 2024, the Colorado state chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility and five other groups filed a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C., seeking to prevent the greenway from coming through Rocky Flats. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the US Federal Highway Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and their respective cabinet departments (Transportation and Interior), from constructing an eight-mile trail through the most heavily plutonium-contaminated area of the wildlife refuge. (The filing assumed that the greenway would proceed from Westminster, but that city’s most recent decision to withdraw funds seems to require a different route.) According to the complaint, the city of Boulder has suggested since at least 2016 that the greenway path avoid Rocky Flats entirely.

The presiding judge, Timothy J. Kelley, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in September 2024. The case now awaits trial.

So far, concerns over Rocky Flats and its wildlife refuge have already limited public access to the refuge. Since April 2018, the Denver School District, the largest in the area, has forbidden its nearly 100,000 students from visiting Rocky Flats on field trips. Other school districts, including Boulder’s, had previously issued similar orders to protect their students.

It is still uncertain how the Trump administration will regard public participation, public protest, and the rule of law at Rocky Flats and other Superfund sites. The new Energy Secretary, Chris Wright, is the former chief executive of a fracking company based in Denver, a known climate change denier, and was on the boards of EMX Royalty, a Canadian company that seeks royalties from extractive mineral mining, and Oklo, Inc., which designs small modular nuclear reactors. Wright is now responsible for overseeing atomic weapons production, cleanup of former weapons facilities, and US energy policy in general. How Wright will interact with Colorado peace activists and environmental protection groups concerned about the defunct plutonium-contaminated weapons facility at Rocky Flats is unclear. But the fight over the future of this legacy site appears far from over.

March 19, 2025 Posted by | - plutonium, environment, USA | Leave a comment

Walt Zlotow: Trump pushing Ukraine peace for simple reason: he has no cards to play either.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 17 Mar 25

At his Oval Office kerfuffle with Ukraine President Zelensky, President Trump told Zelensky he had to make peace with Russia. This followed Zelensky’s plea for more US weapons to keep the war going till Ukraine prevails. Trump disabused him of that notion by saying “You have no cards to play”, colloquial for ‘Make peace, not war.’

Trump knows he has no cards to play as well in the ongoing peace negotiations in Saudi Arabia. That’s why he is anxious to end the war. He knows predecessor Biden made a catastrophic mistake provoking the war over 3 years ago. He knows Ukraine is on the brink of military collapse in spite of the $175 billion in weapons Biden poured into Ukraine that has merely turned it into a failed state. Trump knows Biden sabotaged the imminent peace treaty Putin and Zelensky were prepared to sign ending the war in its first 2 months.

He wants none of that disastrous Biden war policy attached to his foreign policy resume.

Every American, every Ukrainian, every Russian should support the Trump peace initiative that could end the war, bring security to the region, allow reconstruction of the 80% of what’s left of Ukraine, provide resumption of normal US Russia diplomatic relations. Most importantly, it will end the risk of this war going nuclear, a threat hanging over peoplekind every one of the 1,120 days of this totally unnecessary, lost war.

Trump didn’t change sides. He’s not abandoning an ally. He’s not a Russian agent. He’s not a traitor. Unlike Biden, he’s merely a realist who looked at his empty hand, saw Russian President Putin was holding 4 aces, and decided to walk away lest another 100,000 Ukrainians are needlessly sacrificed for America’s lust to control European geopolitics.

On this issue President Trump deserves our support.

March 19, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear plant boss Julia Pyke: ‘It’s a tough gig, developing big infrastructure projects in the UK’.

 Julia Pyke is on a mission to show the nuclear industry is filled with “nice, normal people”. As joint managing director of Sizewell C, a planned nuclear power station on
England’s Suffolk coast, she has to win over campaigners, as well as the
UK government, which has already committed billions of pounds towards the
project.

Her attempts have included an unconventional move to set up a
choir at the facility. “We want to make ourselves much more
accessible,” says Pyke, herself a former choral scholar. She brought the
singers to London for the nuclear industry’s annual bash to perform
“Let it Be, Sizewell C”, a take on The Beatles’ song, to assembled
dignitaries. “It made me laugh,” she says. “Obviously people were
drunk, but by the end of it they were waving their phones in the air.”

Pyke’s affability, she hopes, is an advantage as the company seeks to
improve the perception of the nuclear industry — which she says has
“really undersold itself”.

Amid fierce opposition from many in the
local community, Pyke must convince detractors not just of the importance
of Sizewell C in Britain’s transition to cleaner energy but also as an
economic hub that creates jobs.

The stakes are high as officials are set to
make the final funding decision within months. Industry and Whitehall
figures estimate build costs could rise to as much as £40bn, double the
£20bn estimate given by developer EDF and the UK government in 2020. Pyke
points to the government’s earlier statement that it does not recognise
the figure.

Sizewell’s sister project, the Hinkley Point C plant in
Somerset, is billions of pounds over budget and several years delayed,
contributing to widespread scepticism about the nuclear industry’s
ability to deliver. Meanwhile, the UK’s reputation for building big
infrastructure projects has been tarnished by delays and high costs on
other developments.

 FT 16th March 2025,
https://www.ft.com/content/8613326a-213c-44a3-9e01-a2c8db078919

March 19, 2025 Posted by | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Regulators get targets to cut red tape and boost the economy

Ministers will make Britain’s 16 biggest regulators undergo twice-yearly performance reviews as part of a strategy to speed up big infrastructure projects.

 Rachel Reeves will meet UK regulators on Monday after calling for more
action to restrict red tape and spur economic growth. The chancellor argued
that government plans would reduce costly delays and disputes, saving
businesses billions, and said regulators must accept a more streamlined
decision-making process. Reeves is expected to use the meeting to announce
more detail on how the government will cut the cost of regulation by a
quarter and set out plans to slim down or abolish regulators themselves.
High on the chancellor’s target list are the costly hold-ups to major
infrastructure projects when environmental concerns are raised.

 Guardian 17th March 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/17/reeves-to-outline-plan-to-cut-regulation-costs-and-boost-growth

March 19, 2025 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Europe’s ‘nuclear umbrella’ risks catastrophic escalation

political leaders need to get a grip on reality. Bankrupting Britain and Europe in some desperate attempt to replace the US’s $800 billion military spending in Nato will destroy our societies and worsen all these global crises.

 Morning Star 15th March 2025,
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/europes-nuclear-umbrella-risks-catastrophic-escalation

As Macron and Merz propose French nuclear-armed jets be stationed in Poland and Germany, the dangerous implications for peace and the possibility of nuclear confrontation grow, warns SOPHIE BOLT

AS Trump brutally hammers out a settlement for Ukraine and Russia, he’s also been hammering Europe for vast, cold-war levels of military spending. And European leaders seem very keen to oblige.

Along with Keir Starmer’s so-called peace plan for a 30,000-strong European army, France’s Emmanuel Macron and Germany’s chancellor-in-waiting Friedrich Merz are pushing for a European “nuclear umbrella” — where France could deploy its nuclear-capable jets outside its borders. Merz also wants Britain to step up and deploy its British nuclear submarines to “defend” Europe against Russian aggression.

So what does this “nuclear umbrella” really mean in practice — and what are the risks?

Currently, France has 290 warheads that can be launched by nuclear-capable fighter jets and nuclear-powered submarines. While France’s nuclear weapons doctrine states the weapons are to “defend” its “vital interests,” in 2020, Macron announced that France’s “vital interests now have a European dimension.”

However, he also stated in 2022 that France’s vital interests “would not be at stake if there was a nuclear ballistic attack in Ukraine or in the region.” So, Macron would have to radically shift French nuclear doctrine if the “defence” of Ukraine was to be incorporated. It would mean France being prepared to launch a nuclear strike on Russia, a country that currently possesses over 5,000 nuclear weapons.

Speculation about how this nuclear umbrella would work includes the possibility of nuclear-armed jets being stationed in Germany or Poland (both countries have expressed interest).

Stationing nuclear weapons in countries that don’t have them — known as nuclear sharing — is in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If a nuclear-sharing agreement was secured between France and Poland, nuclear-armed jets could be deployed along Poland’s 130-mile border with Russia.

If a future ceasefire arrangement was breached, could French nuclear jets deployed in Germany and Poland be used against Russia?

Another suggestion is that these French bombers could patrol European borders. Would such borders also include Ukraine’s? In the event of a ceasefire breach, would nuclear-armed French bombers also be deployed in Ukraine?

While Macron’s “nuclear umbrella” idea is getting widespread coverage, these terrifying scenarios — and the human cost of such confrontations — are not.

Behind these wild proposals is the speculation that the US under Trump will withdraw its military and nuclear presence in Europe — and turn off the nuclear tap for its “critical” partner, Britain.

In Britain, figures like former defence secretary Malcolm Rifkind are arguing that Britain has to work more closely with France in case “US reliability ever came into question” in “defending Europe against Russian aggression.”

It has also prompted more challenges to Britain’s so-called special relationship with the US. And shone a welcome spotlight on Britain’s nuclear dependence, with widespread reporting that the ballistic missiles launched from Britain’s nuclear submarines are leased from the US, and that the warheads are a US design.

In fact, the whole nuclear weapons system is under US-led Nato command. So, if Britain wanted its nuclear-armed submarines to be part of a European nuclear umbrella, it would effectively have to get permission from US President Donald Trump.

In response, military analysts like Marion Messmer argue that to end its nuclear dependence on the US, Britain should build an entirely new, air-launching nuclear weapons system. Paid for, no doubt, by British and French taxpayers.

This would be on top of the £205 billion the British government is already wasting on the system’s replacement. A programme the government’s own watchdog has labelled as “unachievable” and unaffordable.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer is silent on the European nuclear umbrella. Having positioned himself against Trump, as champion of Ukraine’s Nato membership, he shifted rapidly to parroting Trump’s “peace through strength” rhetoric.

He now argues that his “peace plan” should be made “in conjunction with the US” because “it’s that ability to work with the US and our European partners that has kept the peace for 80 years now.”

Such an alliance has, of course, totally failed to keep peace, and instead has driven war and poverty globally, causing humanitarian catastrophe, economic crises and environmental devastation.

Instead, political leaders need to get a grip on reality. Bankrupting Britain and Europe in some desperate attempt to replace the US’s $800 billion military spending in Nato will destroy our societies and worsen all these global crises.

Sustainable peace for Europe, Ukraine and Russia cannot be achieved by troops and missiles, backed by the constant, looming threat of nuclear war. That means developing a sustainable security architecture that can ensure long-term peace and prosperity for the entire region.

It means withdrawing US nukes from Europe and Russian ones from Belarus. And it means the US, Russia, Britain and France developing programmes to get rid of their own nuclear weapons. As Trump has said he wants nuclear disarmament, Starmer should be working with him to do so.

Sophie Bolt is general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

March 18, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Script of Anxiety: Poland’s Nuclear Weapons Fascination

we can only assume that the desire to have massively lethal weapons on one’s own soil that would risk obliterating life, limb and everything else is but a sporting parlour game of misplaced assumptions.  

March 17, 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark , https://theaimn.net/the-script-of-anxiety-polands-nuclear-weapons-fascination/

With the Ukraine War and the retreat of the United States from what has routinely been called Europe’s security architecture, states are galloping to whatever point of presumed sanctuary is on offer. The general presumption is that the galloping is done in the same step and rhythm. But Europe, for all the heavy layers of union driven diplomacy, retains its salty differences.

Poland is particularly striking in this regard, having always positioned itself as a defender against the continent’s enemies, perceived or otherwise. This messianic purpose was well on show with the exploits of King John III Sobieski in his triumphant defence of Vienna against the Ottoman Empire in 1683. The seemingly endless wars against Russia, including the massacres and repressions, have also left their wounding marks on a fragile national psyche.  These marks continue to script the approach of Warsaw’s anxiety to its traditional enemy, one that has become fixated with a nuclear option, in addition to a massive buildup of its armed forces and a defence budget that has reached 4.7% of its national income. While there is some disagreement among government officials on whether Poland should pursue its own arsenal, a general mood towards stationing the nuclear weapons of allies has taken hold. (As a matter of interest, a February 21 poll for Onet found that 52.9 percent of Poles favoured having nuclear weapons, with 27.9 percent opposed.)

This would mirror, albeit from the opposite side, the Cold War history of Poland, when its army was equipped with Soviet nuclear-capable 8K11 and 3R10 missiles. With sweet irony, those weapons were intended to be used against NATO member states.

The flirtatious offer of French President Emmanual Macron to potentially extend his country’s nuclear arsenal as an umbrella of reassurance to other European states did make an impression on Poland’s leadership. Prudence might have dictated a more reticent approach, but Prime Minister Donald Tusk would have none of that before the Polish parliament. In his words, “We must be aware that Poland must reach for the most modern capabilities also related to nuclear weapons and modern unconventional weapons.” According to the PM, “this is a race for security, not for war.”

The Polish President, Andrzej Duda, is also warm to the US option (he has been, over his time in office, profoundly pro-American), despite Tusk’s concerns about a “profound change in American geopolitics.” He was already ruminating over the idea in 2022 when he made the proposal to the Biden administration to host US nuclear weapons, one that was also repeated in June 2023 by then-Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki. To have such weapons in Poland was a necessary “defensive tactic […] to Russia’s behaviour, relocating nuclear weapons to the NATO area,” he explained to the BBC. “Poland is ready to host this nuclear weapon.”

Duda then goes on to restate a familiar theme. Were US nuclear weapons stored on Polish soil, Washington would have little choice but to defend such territory against any threat. “Every kind of strategic infrastructure, American and NATO infrastructure, which we have on our soil is strengthening the inclination of the US and the North Atlantic Alliance to defend this territory.” To the Financial Times, Duda further reasoned that, as NATO’s borders had moved east in 1999, “so twenty-six years later there should also be a shift of the NATO infrastructure east.”  

Much of this seems like theatrical, puffy nonsense, given Poland’s membership of the NATO alliance, which has, as its central point, Article 5. Whether it involves its protection by a fellow NATO ally using conventional or nuclear weapons, hosting such nuclear weapons is negated as a value. Poland would receive collective military aid in any case should it be attacked. But, as Jon Wolfsthal of the Federation of American Scientists reasons, an innate concern of being abandoned in the face of aggression continues to cause jitters. Tusk’s remarks were possibly “a signal of concern – maybe to motivate the United States, but clearly designed to play on the French and perhaps the British.”

The crippling paranoia of the current government in the face of any perceived Russian threat becomes even less justifiable given the presence of US troops on its soil. According to the government’s own information, a total of 10,000 troops are present on a rotational basis, with US Land Forces V Corps Forward Command based in Poznań. In February, Duda confirmed to reporters after meeting the US envoy to Ukraine Gen. Keith Kellogg that there were “no concerns that the US would reduce the level of its presence in our country, that the US would in any way withdraw from its responsibility or co-responsibility for the security of this part of Europe.”  

Duda goes further, offering a sycophantic flourish. “I will say in my personal opinion,America has entered the game very strongly when it comes to ending the war in Ukraine. I know President Donald Trump, I know that he is an extremely decisive man and when he acts, he acts in a very determined and usually effective way.” With those remarks, we can only assume that the desire to have massively lethal weapons on one’s own soil that would risk obliterating life, limb and everything else is but a sporting parlour game of misplaced assumptions.  

March 18, 2025 Posted by | EUROPE, weapons and war | Leave a comment

They had a fairytale American childhood – but was radiation slowly killing them?

Decades later, federal investigators acknowledged an increased cancer risk for some people who played in the creek as children,

Sophie Williams, BBC News, Washington DC, 16 Mar 25

After Kim Visintine put her son to bed every night at a hospital in St Louis, Missouri, she spent her evening in the hospital’s library. She was determined to know how her boy had become seriously ill with a rare brain tumour at just a week old.

“Doctors were shocked,” she says. “We were told that his illness was one in a million. Other parents were learning to change diapers but I was learning how to change chemotherapy ports and IVs.”

Kim’s son Zack was diagnosed with a glioblastoma multiforme. It is a brain tumour that is very rare in children and is usually seen in adults over 45.

Zack had chemotherapy treatments but doctors said there was no hope of him ever recovering. He died at just six years old.

Years later, social media and community chatter made Kim start to think that her son was not an isolated case. Perhaps he was part of a bigger picture growing in their community surrounding Coldwater Creek.

In this part of the US, cancer fears have prompted locals to accuse officials of not doing enough to support those who may have been exposed to radiation due to the development of the atomic bomb in the 1940s.

A compensation programme that was designed to pay out to some Americans who contracted diseases after exposure to radiation expired last year – before it could be extended to the St Louis area.

This Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (Reca) provided one-time payouts to people who may have developed cancer or other diseases while living in areas where activities such as atomic weapons testing took place. It paid out $2.6bn (£2bn) to more than 41,000 claimants before coming to an end in 2024.

Benefits were paid to such neighbours, frequently called “downwinders”, in Arizona, Utah and Nevada, but not New Mexico, where the world’s first test of a nuclear weapon took place in 1945. Research published in 2020 by the National Cancer Institute suggested that hundreds of cancers in the area would not have occurred without radiation exposure.

St Louis, meanwhile, was where uranium was refined and used to help create the atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project. After World War Two ended, the chemical was dumped near the creek and left uncovered, allowing waste to seep into the area.

Decades later, federal investigators acknowledged an increased cancer risk for some people who played in the creek as children, but added in their report: “The predicted increases in the number of cancer cases from exposures are small, and no method exists to link a particular cancer with this exposure.”

The clean-up of the creek is still ongoing and is not expected to finish until 2038.

A new bill has been put forward in the House, and Josh Hawley, a US senator representing Missouri, says he has raised the issue with President Donald Trump.

When Kim flicks through her school yearbook, she can identify those who have become sick and those who have since passed away. The numbers are startling.

“My husband didn’t grow up in this area, and he said to me, ‘Kim, this is not normal. It seems like we’re always talking about one of your friends passing away or going to a funeral’,” she says.

Just streets away from the creek, Karen Nickel grew up spending her days near the water picking berries, or in the nearby park playing baseball. Her brother would often try and catch fish in Coldwater Creek.

“I always tell people that we had just the fairytale childhood that you would expect in what you consider suburban America,” says Karen. “Big backyards, big families, children playing out together until the street lights came on at night.”

But years later, her carefree childhood now looks very different.

“Fifteen people from the street I grew up on have died from rare cancers,” she says. “We have neighbourhoods here where every house has been affected by some cancer or some illness. We have streets where you can’t just find a house where a family has not been affected by this.”

When Karen’s sister was just 11 years old, doctors discovered that her ovaries were covered in cysts. The same had happened to their neighbour when she was just nine. Karen’s six-year-old granddaughter was born with a mass on her right ovary.

Karen helped found Just Moms STL, a group that is dedicated to protecting the community from future exposures that could be linked to cancers – and which advocates for a clean-up of the area.

“We get messages every day from people that are suffering from illnesses and are questioning whether this is from exposure,” she says. “These are very aggressive illnesses that the community is getting, from cancers all the way to autoimmune diseases.”

Teresa Rumfelt grew up just a street away from Karen and lived in her family home from 1979 until 2010. She remembers every one of her animals passing away from cancer and her neighbours getting ill from rare diseases.

Years later, her sister Via Von Banks was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a form of motor neurone disease. Some medical studies have suggested there could be a link between radiation and ALS, but this is not definitive – and more research needs to be done to firm it up.

That does not reassure people like Teresa who are concerned that more needs to be done to understand how locals are being affected.

“ALS took my sister at 50,” Teresa says. “I think it was the worst disease ever of mankind. When she was diagnosed in 2019, she’d just got her career going and her children were growing. She stayed positive through all of it.”

Like Hawley, Just STL Moms and other community members want the government’s compensation act to be expanded to include people within the St Louis area, despite the programme being in limbo after expiring.

Expanding it to the Coldwater Creek community would mean that locals could be offered compensation if they could prove they were harmed as a result of the Manhattan Project, during which the atomic bomb was developed with the help of uranium-processing in St Louis. It would also allow screenings and further study into illnesses other than cancer.

In a statement to the BBC, the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it took concerns very seriously and had actively worked with federal, state and local partners – as well as community members – to understand their health concerns, and to ensure community members were not exposed to the Manhattan Project-era waste.

The BBC has also contacted the US Army Corps of Engineers, which is leading the clean-up – but has not received a response to a request for comment.

“My sister would have loved to be part of the fight. She’d be the first to picket,” says Teresa of her efforts to get greater support from the government.

The trend in people around Coldwater Creek getting unwell has not gone unnoticed among healthcare professionals.

Dr Gautum Agarwal, a cancer surgeon at Mercy Hospital in St Louis, says he has not noticed a “statistical thing”, but notes that he has seen husbands and wives and their neighbours presenting cancers.

Now, he ensures that his patients are asked where they live and how close they are to Coldwater Creek.

“I tell them that there’s a potential that there’s a link. And if your neighbours or family live near there, we should get them screened more often. And maybe you should get your kids screened earlier.”

He hopes that over time more knowledge will be gained about the issue, and for a study into multi-cancer early detection tests to be introduced that could help catch any potential cancers, and help reassure people in the area……….. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2e7011n03vo

March 18, 2025 Posted by | health, PERSONAL STORIES, USA | Leave a comment

Canada to review the purchase of US-made F-35 fighter jets in light of Trump’s trade war

By  ROB GILLIES, March 16, 2025

TORONTO (AP) — Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked Defense Minister Bill Blair to review the purchase of America’s F-35 fighter jet to see if there are other options “given the changing environment,” a spokesman for Blair said Saturday.

Defense ministry press secretary Laurent de Casanove said the contract to purchase U.S. military contractor Lockheed Martin’s F-35 currently remains in place and Canada has made a legal commitment of funds for the first 16 aircraft. Canada agreed to buy 88 F-35’s two years ago.

Carney, who was sworn in on Friday, has asked Blair to work with the military “to determine if the F-35 contract, as it stands, is the best investment for Canada, and if there are other options that could better meet Canada’s needs,” de Casanove said……………………………………………………………………………………………………..more https://apnews.com/article/f35-canada-trump-0d3bf192d3490d87570d48475ff2c3a6

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Canada, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Putin Signals He’s Open to Ceasefire as Witkoff Arrives for Talks.

An aide to Putin said the proposal would only help Ukraine regroup and that it would need to be adjusted to meet Moscow’s position

by Dave DeCamp March 13, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/13/us-envoy-arrives-in-russia-to-discuss-30-day-ceasefire-proposal-with-putin/

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signaled that he’s open to a ceasefire in Ukraine but that he has “questions” about the 30-day US-Ukraine proposal that need to be discussed.

“The idea itself is the right one, and we definitely support it,” Putin said, according to The New York Times. “But there are questions that we need to discuss, and I think that we need to talk them through with our American colleagues and partners.”

The Russian leader listed potential conditions for a 30-day truce, including a guarantee that Ukraine wouldn’t be supplied with more weapons. “We also want guarantees that during the 30-day ceasefire, Ukraine will not conduct mobilization, will not train soldiers, and will not receive weapons,” he said, according to RT.

Putin also questioned who would monitor the ceasefire. “Who will determine where and who has violated a potential ceasefire agreement along a 2,000-kilometer line? Who will attribute blame for any violations? These are all questions that require thorough examination from both sides,” he said.

The Russian leader said any long-term peace deal needs to address the “root causes” of the war. He made the comments as US envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Russia to discuss the proposal. Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin official, said Witkoff would be holding a closed-door meeting with Putin.

Ushakov also said the US-Ukraine proposal would only give Ukraine a chance to regroup, and it would need to be adjusted to meet Moscow’s interests.

“As for the 30-day temporary ceasefire, what is it about? There is nothing in it for us. It will only provide the Ukrainians with the opportunity to regroup and gain strength to continue doing what they are doing,” he said, according to Russia’s TASS news agency.

“These are some hasty actions that do not benefit a long-term settlement … We will need to work on it, to think it over so that it reflects our position, too. It reflects only Ukraine’s stance at this point,” he added.

Ushakov said that Russia wanted a long-term peace deal and that the “official” Russian position on the US-Ukraine proposal would be formulated by Putin.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made similar comments opposing the idea of a temporary ceasefire, pointing to the Minsk Accords, which were first reached in 2014 for a truce in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. Lavrov also mentioned the “Istanbul agreement,” referring to a peace deal that was on the table in March and April 2022, which was discouraged by the US and its allies.

“I’m talking about the Minsk Accords, the deal that was discarded after the 2014 coup, and the Istanbul agreements. All of those included a ceasefire. And every time, it turned out that they had lied to us. The Ukrainians lied with the support of their European partners,” Lavrov said.

A joint statement between the US and Ukraine that was released after talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday said that Ukraine had “expressed readiness to accept the US proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation.”

The statement also said that the US had resumed military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine, which was briefly paused. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that if Russia doesn’t accept the 30-day proposal, the US would then know who the “impediment” to peace is, signaling he wants the proxy war will continue as usual if a deal isn’t reached.

March 17, 2025 Posted by | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment